Deborah Grey

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have much time left. I am not sure how much time it will take to try to talk some sense into this false debate.

We have looked at the pension program that has gone on for years in this place. People stand and say: "I have no problem with the pay that I get or with the pension that I am going to get". May they realize that when they say they are worth it that is fine in their estimation; maybe they think they are worth it. We will see what the voters think they are worth at the polls the next time around.

When we look at a pension plan which is simply seven times more generous than any public sector plan and four times more generous than any private sector plan, how in the world can anyone stand in their place and not be ashamed of it? Why are we any more special?

Are we in favour of special status for some? No. That is why the Reform Party came to this place. We do not think groups of people should have special status. Yet we hear people inside this hall saying: "We deserve it. We are worth it because we work hard". It just does not add up.

I see my friend from Edmonton East here. I want to make a comment about that. Is this person going to opt out? The government has allowed members of Parliament elected in 1988 and forward to opt out. Why only some of us get the option to opt out I do not know, unless it is politically motivated. I am challenging her to opt out of the pension plan because she cannot sell it in downtown Edmonton. Our ridings abut. I challenge her to a debate in my riding or in hers. We will take on toe to toe. We will talk about this pension plan. I will bet my pension plan that she will not be able to sell it there.

Not only that. I challenge my friend from Edmonton North as well who thinks that he is able to collect a plan. I am challenging him today, and I have some respect for him, to opt out of the plan because he will never sell it in Edmonton North.

I am challenging my friend from Edmonton Northwest to opt out of the plan too because she has the option to opt out. She does not exactly have a huge healthy majority with which she slipped into this place. I think the last count officially was that it was by 11 votes that she came into this place. I challenge my friend from Edmonton Northwest to a debate, as I do my friends from Edmonton North and Edmonton East, in my riding or theirs. I will be happy to do it. I land in Edmonton every week at the Edmonton airport before I drive three hours home. I challenge her to a debate. I also challenge her to opt out of the plan willy-nilly, just do it. If ever she has a hope of getting re-elected, even with her cabinet money that she is able to throw into it, just do it. She should not just think about it but just do it. I ask her to come to Beaver River and have a debate, or I will go there and have a debate. I guarantee I will get off at the municipal airport. It is right handy there. Let us have a debate toe to toe.

The longest serving MP in the House from Alberta is my friend from Edmonton Southeast for whom I have an incredible amount of respect. I am challenging him as well to opt out of the plan. There is no technical way he can do it because of the way the legislation is written. Only members elected in 1988 or beyond are able to do it. Edmonton Southeast, I will be there for a debate on the pension plan, or he can come to my riding, any

place any time. I will get off the aeroplane in Edmonton. Let us have a debate and see how it goes.

The member who just spoke before me tried somehow to drag in employment equity or the fact that as a woman I am hard done by in this place. There are many women in this place and there is no way they are able to justify the pension plan regardless of gender, race or ethnic background. Absolutely not.

I am being heckled by two rookie female MPs. The third one is not making any comments at this point. However, as I stand here as a women I tell not only these members but every Canadian woman that I will make it on my own and that as a woman I do not need special treatment-

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to make a comment about the hon. member's remarks that we are against women and looking after retirement-

[Code Of Ethics, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic then that the Prime Minister said yesterday on page 13370 of Hansard , ``I discussed this with the ethics counsellor yesterday morning''. Why would that be necessary then?

It clearly states on page 95 of the Liberal red book that the government will appoint an independent ethics counsellor who will report directly to Parliament. Instead what we have is an ethics counsellor who rules on ethical issues after the fact and who reports only to the Prime Minister. It is yet another red book broken promise.

Given the ethics watchdog's obvious lack of teeth, will the Prime Minister honour the red book commitment and make the ethics counsellor responsible directly to Parliament, not to himself?

[Code Of Ethics, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the heritage minister's cash for contracts dinner in Montreal, the pork for pavement highway deal in Cape Breton, or the revenue minister's legal cases for cronies on the west coast, the ethics counsellor always seems to be the last one to know. Mr. Wilson is becoming more a political scapegoat than an ethics watchdog.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. When was the ethics counsellor contacted about any of these violations of ethics, and why was he not consulted beforehand rather than after?

[Minister Of Canadian Heritage, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal red book promised to restore integrity to our political institution. It promised a Liberal government would ensure codes of conduct were met and that conflict of interest would become a thing of the past.

Only 20 months later Canadians are wondering whether anyone in the House other than the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce remembers those promises, which he campaigned on, in the red book. If the government were serious about its election commitments the Minister of Canadian Heritage would be a thing of the past.

Why has the government again broken its red book promises to restore integrity to our political institutions?

[Minister Of Canadian Heritage, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, political contributions are not the problem here. Guaranteed contracts because of those contributions are the problem.

The government's approach to conflicts of interest is no different form the Mulroney gang. "If he had any information other than smear and innuendo let him summon the courage to make a direct accusation". Are these the words of the Prime Minister? No, they came from the lips of Brian Mulroney in defence of Roch LaSalle of all people.

Why has the Prime Minister adopted the Mulroney approach to political integrity and why will he not ask the heritage minister to resign?

[Minister Of Canadian Heritage, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking cash or contributions, we are talking contracts which arise out of those fundraisers.

The Liberals in opposition would have demanded the resignation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I watched them and they would have demanded it for sure. Their disgust and outrage would have echoed through these hallowed halls and in the press. The Liberals in government however dismiss the minister's dinner for dollars as harmless and then they send out the spin doctors to minimize the damage. Brian Mulroney must be smiling as he watches this as he may soon be appointed the Liberals' patron saint.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, the honourable thing which happened years ago and ask the minister to resign?

[Minister Of Canadian Heritage, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in my six years as an MP I have seen government patronage and corruption at its very worst. I listened to Liberal howls of outrage and calls for integrity, competence and honour when they were in opposition. Now they are sitting on the other side of the House and of course the tune has changed. This government is showing the same arrogance as its predecessor and it thinks that popularity polls can justify patronage appointments, backroom deals and political payoffs.

My question for the Prime Minister is why the double standard? If Roch LaSalle resigned, why will not his minister?

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra mentioned in his speech that he thought that I, the member for Beaver River, was off base today in my question. In terms of openness in government and some of the opinions that he has just shared, could he explain to me what he was talking about earlier in his speech where he assumed that courts and the provincial and federal governments are the people that have these avenues?

Although provincial governments have the jurisdiction to administer and process adoptions, as he was referring to, they have absolutely no business, no jurisdiction and no right in either the federal, provincial or court system to redefine family.

In the member's expert opinion, could he explain to me how I am so off base when I asked the minister earlier about legislators making the law and courts interpreting the law. Federally and provincially it looks as though the courts are actually making the laws.

[Human Rights, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I well understand the difference between federal and provincial. What I am asking about is how anyone in the courts will interpret the law, whether provincial or federal.

Poll after poll demonstrates conclusively that Canadians disagree with the Ontario court and do not wish to extend adoption rights to homosexual couples. The Ontario legislature itself refused to do that last year. In the same way, Canadians overwhelmingly oppose the minister's plan to amend the human rights act at the federal level.

Will this minister reconsider his promise to add sexual orientation to the human rights act and represent the wishes of Canadians, unlike the Ontario provincial court recently did?