Deborah Grey

[Agriculture, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we can just see how much support there is for that. He has to do more than just continue talking.

The United States has just pumped $6 billion more of new unfair subsidies into its farms. That is on top of the already billions of dollars that they have. Subsidies make up 30% of a farmer's income. The Europeans are subsidizing unfairly $60 billion a year to their farmers. It is impossible for our farmers to compete.

Why does the Prime Minister not start tackling and taking on the Americans and the European bullies for their huge subsidies to farmers?

[Agriculture, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for a year now the Prime Minister has known that a farm crisis has been looming in our country. Prices have been falling and foreign farmers continue to receive billions of dollars in unfair subsidies.

The only new farm laws that the government has brought in are to initiate taxes on farm fuels and fertilizers and to make it a crime for farmers to sell their wheat.

Why does the Prime Minister not stand up for farmers instead of finding new ways to punish them regularly?

[Apec Inquiry, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that answer is exactly the answer that the former solicitor general gave every day and we know what happened to him.

The Prime Minister knows that if he is subpoenaed to go to the public complaints commission, he can refuse to answer any question that he just does not want to answer. That is different than a court, a judicial inquiry where a judge can order the Prime Minister to tell the truth.

If the Prime Minister really has nothing to hide like he just said, why does he not call a real inquiry headed up by a real judge? What is he so afraid of?

[Apec Inquiry, November 24th, 1998]

It looks like we hit a weak spot. Mr. Speaker, a judicial inquiry can investigate the Prime Minister. The public complaints commission cannot. An independent judicial inquiry can get to the bottom of the Prime Minister's involvement in this. The public complaints commission cannot. An independent judicial inquiry can force the Prime Minister to produce documents. The public complaints commission cannot.

Will the Prime Minister please stand up and admit that these are the real reasons he does not want to have an independent inquiry?

[Apec Inquiry, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister that we want investigated. An independent judicial inquiry—

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition signed by several people in Edmonton and surrounding areas.

Whereas the majority of Canadians understand the concept of marriage as only the voluntary union of an unmarried male and an unmarried female, and whereas it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage as it has always been known and understood in Canada be preserved and protected, therefore the petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation such as Bill C-225 to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Apec Inquiry, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing worse than that behaviour is defending it. We are going to attack the government for 30 days more, for weeks, and the only bonus would be that this Prime Minister would step down at the end of it.

On the very day that the solicitor general quit the Prime Minister is still stonewalling and talking about what an honourable fellow he is. The only way to get to the bottom of this is an independent inquiry with an independent judge to find out what the Prime Minister's independent involvement was.

Will the Prime Minister stand right now and announce immediately a full judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of this and quit this charade that has been going on for weeks?

[Apec Inquiry, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this resignation is the last nail in the coffin for the public complaints commission.

Peter Donolo from the Prime Minister's Office said today that the government does not consider the resignation an admission that the commission process is tainted.

My question is very simple. If the former solicitor general did not taint the process, why in the world did he resign?

[Finance, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, long live the king.

The auditor general has refused to sign off on the government's books. It can try to discuss that away but it simply will not work. If the auditor refused to sign off on a private company's books Revenue Canada would move in, the management would be fired and there would be an investigation.

I again ask this question of the revenue minister and I would like an answer. Should Canadian businesses be allowed to operate their books the way the finance minister has been, thinking he is against the law?

[Finance, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the words of one great Canadian philosopher, beauty fades but stunned is forever.

This minister knows that when one cooks the books in a business—