Deborah Grey

[Publishing Industry, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, a lot of the minister's colleagues are not terribly impressed by what is going on.

This is a victory for the government, sort of like the GST was a victory: both proud heritage moments. The minister lost and Canadians lost, and we all know it. Taxpayers now get to buy magazines whether they like them or not.

Why it is that Canadians always get left holding the bag for this minister's cultural crusades?

[Publishing Industry, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, only the Liberals can call stiffing the taxpayers a win-win. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has failed again and Canadians are stuck with the bill once again. This is going to mean millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

Just like Bubbles Galore , this is going to cost taxpayers dollars galore. Just how many dollars would that be?

[Canada Development Corporation, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister realizes that he could have been in a very serious conflict of interest position here. We want that cleared up.

On the one hand, he was a director of a crown corporation that was profiting from selling tainted blood to thousands of Canadians who were poisoned. On the other hand, he was the minister holding the purse strings for the government at that same time when it was coming up with a compensation package for hepatitis C victims.

Rather than the finance minister saying “I'm a little surprised” or “I'm just not sure”, if he has absolutely nothing to hide, when will he release every document available to him so he can wash his hands of this once and for all?

[Canada Development Corporation, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if all of that is absolutely true then he should have no trouble clearing the air on this once and for all.

The finance minister was a member of cabinet when we were debating compensation packages for hepatitis C victims. This package happened to leave out victims of tainted blood between 1981 and 1986. Coincidentally, those are the very same years that the finance minister sat on the board of that crown corporation.

Did the finance minister excuse himself from all cabinet meetings that dealt with money and compensation packages for hepatitis C victims?

[Canada Development Corporation, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is another Liberal link in the tainted blood scandal. The finance minister was a director of a crown corporation, Canada Development Corporation, from 1981 to 1986. During that time one of CDC's companies, Connaught Laboratories, imported tainted blood from U.S. prisons in spite of warnings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The finance minister should have been aware of these dealings.

Will the finance minister release any minutes or documents from relevant board meetings of Connaught and CDC and if not, why not?

[The Late Hugh Hanrahan, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Hugh Hanrahan, former MP for Edmonton—Strathcona who served here from 1993 to 1997. He passed away in Edmonton on Wednesday, May 19.

Hugh grew up in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, one of five boys in the family. He obtained his bachelor of arts degree and bachelor of education degree from Saint Francis Xavier University and his master's in education from the University of Ottawa.

He moved to Calgary for his first teaching job but settled in Edmonton soon after. He taught with Edmonton Catholic schools for 20 years.

He was awarded a teacher of the year award for his devotion to increasing high school students' knowledge of economics.

In 1997 Hugh's health prevented him from running for a second term in office so he returned to teaching, what he was most comfortable with.

Hugh also had a great pride in his Irish and Scottish roots. He especially enjoyed spending summers in Nova Scotia with his family because he loved the seaside.

Hugh is survived by his wife Dianne, daughter Margaret Anne and four brothers. We would like the family to know that all of us are thinking of them.

[Impaired Driving, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we were asking for a commitment before the House rises.

Another thing we talked about in that report, and one of my colleagues brought it forward in the first place, was that we needed to lower the blood alcohol level from .08 to .05. That is the standard in 10 European countries and Australia. It seems to be working. Transport Canada said that if we lowered the limit to .05 it would save more than 500 lives a year. I dare say that would be worth it.

Let me ask a question of the justice minister again. Why will she not take the advice of her own government officials and the standing committee and commit to getting this thing done before summer so we would save lives?

[Impaired Driving, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, studying and reports will not save lives. We are going into summer and we know that is a horrible time for carnage on our roads with drunk driving.

Unless the government acts now we will probably continue to see the death rate rising as a result of drunk drivers. There is no time for political delay. We need tougher laws now. We have studied and we have reported long enough.

Will the justice minister commit now to passing new tough anti-drunk driving legislation before the House rises for the summer?

[Impaired Driving, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, drunk driving kills thousands of Canadians every year, twice as many as homicides. Thousands more are injured. Yet the government is introducing only half measures to deal with this tragedy.

Reports indicate that the government is against the police using hand held sensors to detect drunk drivers. Apparently it would rather stick to the good old usual smell your breath, walk a straight line approach that is not exactly science.

Why is the justice minister against police using this reliable tool to fight drunk driving?

[Taxation, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks about a surplus as though it is some kind of Liberal largesse. Taxpayers are the ones who looked after that. They looked after balancing the budget. It was not the Liberals.

Every Canadian is paying $2,000 more in taxes now than they were in 1993. Those are the figures. People have just finished doing their taxes so they know that.

The Prime Minister has a million and one excuses for why he needs these high taxes but he keeps getting mixed up with the facts. They just keep getting in his way.

I would like the Prime Minister to stand in his place and tell Canadians why they have such a big surplus and he still wants to keep his mud hooks on it. Why is that?