Deborah Grey

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

"On what", the minister asks of me. Unfortunately she did not hear what I said. Let me reiterate it because it is that important.

Our party said that we would give unanimous consent to an amendment to the Criminal Code to get rid of the drunkenness defence immediately. If the minister is sincere, if she is serious about making sure that violence is not perpetrated on other people in our society, especially people whom they know and ultimately care about, surely we could pass that amendment now. That would be true action. I think nothing would speak louder than an amendment to the Criminal Code.

I urge the secretary of state to listen to Canadians and to push the Minister of Justice to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code.

My colleagues across are saying "What about gun control?". Yes, gun control for the people who are abusing guns and making sure that those people pay the price. This needs to be done now.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute today as well to the 14 women who five years ago were brutally murdered at l'École polytechnique. We deplore such violence in our society and must make every effort to reform the criminal justice system so that tragedies like this are avoided.

On December 6, 1989 one of the worst nightmares in this society came to pass when one sick individual went into our schools and gunned down 14 young women. Crime is a terrible fact in our society that we must do our best to eradicate. It affects us all.

Not only was that murder deplorable but there have been several since, maybe not on that large scale, but certainly the fact is when anyone is murdered in this country it is too many.

It is reported that violent crime is on the rise. Since 1988 in the nation's capital alone, here in Ottawa total violent crime is up 75 per cent. Considering this alarming statistic, let us look together at a solution to the situation, not always look back in time but forward as to how we can avoid these things in the future.

We must be cautious not to give the impression that the problems of violence in our society only affect women. We need to be very careful that is not the only thing we talk about. They are not simply women's issues. All men must not be branded. Most Canadian men abhor violence. They do not condone it, nor do they want to be put on a guilt trip for one maniac who went crazy and committed such a deplorable act.

These issues affect all members of our society. Violence is perpetrated on many areas of our society, certainly violence against women but also men, seniors and children. The largest category of violent crime is male violence against other males. We have grandparents and seniors who are verbally and physically abused, and let us not forget the children. Our vulnerable children are being preyed on more and more.

The government pays lip service and expresses a sincere intent to address the issue of violence against women. The minister just said we need to act. However, on looking back at the legislative agenda of this government for the last year it seems that there has been very little action taken that will remedy the situation.

There needs to be fairness in the system. Sentencing for violent crimes needs to be fair. Recently in Surrey-White Rock-South Langley a father of two murdered his wife, put her back into bed, and after the crime he admitted to a friend what he had done. He was not convicted of murder one or murder two but simply of manslaughter. His defence was that his wife had threatened to spread a rumour that he was molesting his children. He was sentenced to five years in jail, but he served only two of them for killing his wife. This is intolerable.

I would hope that the minister would hear me when I say that we must have punishment in place for criminals that fits the crime. Unfortunately the government aims at the wrong people in society and at the wrong sector for getting tough with criminals such as someone who could kill his wife and simply serve two years of his sentence. That is intolerable.

If we want to truly stop the tide of violence in society we must start one small step at a time. We are willing to take that step. We are willing to make the commitment. We are willing to make the tough decisions that will protect our women, our children and our men. If we really want to make a difference and show Canada that we are truly sick and tired of senseless crimes the government should take action now to keep people from beating, raping or killing people, and then using the excuse that we have seen recently that they were simply too drunk to know what they were doing and so they get away with the crime.

If the Secretary of State for the Status of Women wants to safeguard women, children and men in Canada, surely she will use her influence around the cabinet table to get rid of the drunkenness defence. I urge the secretary of state to listen to Canadians and to push the Minister of Justice to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code now. We have given our consent that we would let this be passed within 24 hours.

[Leader Of The Opposition, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean and to say on behalf of my caucus how pleased we are that he is recuperating.

When I arrived at Edmonton International Airport on Thursday evening I received the news of his frightening illness. I was stunned, as were all Canadians. I lay awake almost all night thinking of him, praying that he would live through the night and that the doctors treating him would have real wisdom.

I will always remember the years that the Leader of the Opposition and I sat side by side in the House, from the summer of 1990 until the election of 1993. We talked about the birth of his two sons, Alexandre and Simon. His eyes would light up when he spoke of them, of the incredible joy they have brought to him and his wife, Audrey.

This disease ravages those whom it affects. Mr. Bouchard's life has been spared and it seems nothing short of miraculous.

Good luck, Lucien. We continue to pray for your recovery. God bless you.

[Gun Control, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it seems evident across the country that these proposals are in fact full of holes and seriously flawed.

We have seen in previous legislation in the House that this minister has set a precedent for ramrodding, railroading and running roughshod over the democratic process.

The minister said that yesterday's proposals are final. Will the minister, upon tabling the legislation, be open to further consultation? Will he consider changes to these proposals that attack responsible law-abiding gun owners?

[Gun Control, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it still seems wise that we would get support from all of them when all the provinces will be involved.

In one short statement yesterday the Minister of Justice eliminated the role of Parliament, of the Standing Committee on Justice and of interested parties on both sides of the issue. He said: "Let me make it very clear. The process of consultation leading to legislation is now over". This is unacceptable.

What gives the Minister of Justice the power to interfere with the parliamentary process which includes the Standing Committee on Justice? Is true democracy proving to be inconvenient for the justice minister?

[Gun Control, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice said:

During the course of the last several months, I have been in continuous touch with senior officials and indeed with provincial counterparts, attorneys general and ministers of justice, exchanging views about the proposals that will be decided upon and announced this afternoon.

However today in a television interview he revealed that he had not spoken to some of the provincial justice ministers but hoped that he would get their support.

Given that the registration of firearms will have a significant impact upon the financial resources of the provinces and territories, why did the minister not get the support of provincial justice ministers before the fact, not after?

[Government Expenditures, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I address my supplementary question to the Minister of the Treasury Board.

Reviewing is one thing, we want action after the review. The government is sending all the wrong signals to its federal officials. How can we expect the bureaucracy to spend more responsibly when the executive assistant to the minister of fisheries received a $31,000 severance package for four months-or seven months even, I could certainly live on that-and is not even required to repay a penny when he is rehired to the same position several months later?

My question is for the Minister of the Treasury Board. How can the government dare to ask Canadians to tighten their belts? What part of fiscal restraint does he not understand?

[Government Expenditures, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first we learned about the limo service of the official language commissioner and Ottawa digs at taxpayers' expense. Now we hear that the part time chairman of Ports Canada has billed the government $61,500 in extra pay on top of $53,000 in expenses, $12,000 for an Ottawa apartment that is used 24 days a year and $34,500 in travel from his home in Vermont. Does this sound like fiscal restraint, Mr. Speaker?

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Will he undertake an immediate review of per diems, honoraria and expense accounts of all government appointees to federal agencies?

[Points Of Order, November 29th, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Points Of Order, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order regarding a conversation you and I had yesterday concerning a newspaper article that came out recently in the Ottawa Citizen . You had some concern that I was questioning the integrity of the Chair.

I would like to put on the record that I in no way am imputing any motives to you and that I am not questioning the integrity of the Chair or the Speaker.