Deborah Grey

[Ethics, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he had learned of the letter to the CRTC from the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the beginning of the month of October and that he had consulted the ethics counsellor.

I draw the House's attention to yesterday's Hansard at page 7312 where the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:

I consulted the government's ethics counsellor and one I appointed for myself-

In light of those remarks I would like to ask the Prime Minister how he could say just a few moments ago that: "I did not speak to him myself. I asked that he be consulted". Further, how could he justify saying just a few moments ago: "I thought Mr. Wilson had been consulted". Why the discrepancy?

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this gives new meaning to the phrase "the six month's hoist". Improper ministerial influence is apparent when only one application to the CRTC is favoured with a personal introduction by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on ministerial letterhead.

This morning the minister said that he "never for a moment had any hesitation or misunderstanding about my role or responsibilities as a minister".

If that is the case then he knowingly and grossly violated that understanding by favouring this application. For his incompetence and his incredible lack of judgment, will this minister resign?

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage claims that he wrote the letter to the CRTC on behalf of a constituent to ensure that he received "a fair hearing and due consideration".

He also claims he had absolutely no intention of influencing the CRTC. Does the minister have any reason to believe that the CRTC would not give his application a fair hearing and due consideration unless he personally wrote them a letter?

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first we hear the Prime Minister say that he was making a representation as an ordinary MP. Then in the next breath the Prime Minister said: "Well, it was an honest mistake".

We want the true answer to this. Was it representation or was it a mistake?

[Justice, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Supreme Court ruled that extreme drunkenness is a viable excuse for rape.

Citing this ruling on Tuesday in an Ontario court, a drunken man was given a light sentence for sexually assaulting a woman. It appears that he will probably serve the sentence in a halfway house while still going to work.

On October 3, I asked the Minister of Justice what his plans were to eliminate such nonsense. The parliamentary secretary said they would come forward with a report.

I have two questions: Where is this report and what are its recommendations?

[WOMEN MPs, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of howling, it appears I may have struck a chord by questioning the Liberals' nomination not election process. The normally docile government backbenchers came alive with protests and howls of indignation.

The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester passionately claimed that she was duly elected in her riding and the hon. member for Edmonton East-I could go on and on today-went to great lengths to show that residents in her riding and no one else chose a Liberal candidate.

How about some testimonials from those who were perhaps appointed? How about the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore? Why is she so quiet? What about York Centre or Hull-Aylmer? Nothing to say? We want testimonials from these people. How about my friend from Saskatoon-Humboldt? Does she have any comments on the nomination?

Were these people appointed or democratically nominated, not elected? Do they subscribe to the views of their Prime Minister who when asked why he appointed more than 14 candidates, male and female, said in a press conference "sometimes Canadians just cannot be trusted to make the right choice".

[Reform Party, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I might say that we were all elected to the House of Commons. Some of us were elected to be candidates for the House of Commons.

On Thursday, 1,450 Reform delegates from every province and territory in Canada converged on the nation's capital for our assembly. In just two short days Reform delegates discussed, debated and passed 27 resolutions that would eliminate the deficit, make the streets safe for our children, salvage our shaky social safety net and put more money in the hands of taxpayers. That is quite an accomplishment.

The delegates told us again and again that Canadians were tired of the everything is under control attitude of the present government. Canadians want real change, real options, real discussions, real hope and real reform.

While the Liberals were obviously watching our assembly the debt has risen to $534,611,591-

[Immigration, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if we look specifically at the report perhaps part of this was taken out of context.

The minister's own employees have called for lowering the numbers in two separate reports. So have his government backbenchers. Ontario's NDP government has sent a very strong message to either cut the numbers or double the integration grants.

Will this minister admit that he perhaps is not listening to anybody, not the experts, his backbenchers nor the civil servants or even other governments and certainly not to Canadians in general. His million dollar immigration consultations have been a farce.

[Immigration, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister's so-called public consultation process is now over.

I trust that in addition to special interest groups the minister has consulted with Dr. Don Devoretz, a leading immigration expert, who says that the family reunification policy has lowered the success of today's immigrants.

Is this minister committed to acting upon the will of Canadians as expressed in poll after poll as well as the findings of experts? Will he substantially reduce the level of immigration in Canada?

[Justice, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the House and the country are getting tired of reviews.

A sane society should move toward zero tolerance of drinking and driving, not away from it. A sane society puts rape victims ahead of rapists.

Will the minister urge upon his government a constitutional amendment or the use of the notwithstanding clause to ensure that when the rights of victims and the rights of criminals conflict that the rights of the victim will always prevail?